Strong wording? Definitely. For good reason. Proposition 8 passed along with other movements in other states to make a group of people less worthy than others. I honestly felt sick when I heard this.

Why is there this blind hatred? Because to me that's what this is about. If it's due to religion, then why do the people have the right to force their religious beliefs on others?

Don't get me wrong. If you don't agree with it or whatever - fine. But people shouldn't be allowed to force their will on others. It's no different than having a seperate water fountain for 'coloured' people. I don't understand what people were 'protecting' other than the right to be in a 'no gays allowed' club. There is no gain in this, only loss.

I can't imagine how these poor families feel, wondering if they are going to be now stripped of their rights. The pain that they must be going through. All for what?

Note again - I'm not saying that you have to 'agree' with gay marriage. As the saying goes, if you don't agree with it don't get one. Other than that, leave these people alone, it's none of others business.

I don't think it's hatred. I just think that Prop 8 was passed in response to the court's flagrant disregard for how the people of California had previously voted on this matter.

As for me, I strongly resent being branded as homophobic because I don't like dressing up homosexual relationships in heterosexual trappings and tinkering with the definition of what, to many people, is a sacred institution as well as a social and legal contract creating society's most basic unit. Equal legal rights for any couple who consents to marriage or otherwise setting up house together are one thing, and I can get behind that. Redefining marriage itself is a different can of worms.

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

We discussed marriage in Anthropology and I believe that this country's standards of Marriage is purely political and cultural and religious based.

I think it is wrong to say that they can't be married because some 1800 year old book implies that they shouldn't, and therefore we set up our whole structure for our society on said book. (Which by the way, the forefathers claimed separation of church & state. What's up with that?)

Originally posted by Ult_Sm86
(Which by the way, the forefathers claimed separation of church & state. What's up with that?)

{sigh}

Our forefathers were the puritains - the religious right of the religious right; the Westboro Baptist Church of Europe. They came HERE for religious freedom, not to get away from religion, but because nobody in Europe was religious enough. In other words, this country was settled so a group of very religious Christians could get down to practicing some very serious Christianity in peace.

The separation of church and state was not about keeping religious ideas out of the government, it was about not establishing a State Religion (such as the Church of England) that would prevent them from freely practicing their highly conservative religious ideals. Today it is used as an argument for secular government, but that was never the intent.

Cool. Whenever you feel comfortable. If you don't want me to respond i won't (i understand not wanting to get into a debate), although i cannot promise i won't have even more questions afterwards (although i can promise to keep them internal).

Traditional marriage is between one man and as many little girls as he can afford. That's what's in the Bible anyway.

The modern concept of marriage in the western world has been moving in the direction of equality and partnership for centuries. And it's been "redefined" even in the last few decades when interracial marriage was legalized.

Most of the slippery slope arguments against Same-Sex marriage (opens the door to polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, etc...) would actually be steps in the other direction. Polygamy used to be a part of "Traditional" marriage but today that no longer fits with our modern notion of marriage as a partnership, because equality can't exist when one man has the same standing as multiple women. The same way that an adult human can't have equality with a child or an animal (who can't even enter into legal contracts anyway).

Expanding Same-Sex couples into marriage would be the logical step forward to equality and partnership. And I think that actually frightens people who still think of men as being dominant over women. It's evident in common misconceptions about gay couples "Which one is the man?" that some people can't wrap their heads around a true partnership where both people come into the relationship on equal grounds.

This makes me sick. Nobody has the right to say whether two consenting adults can and cannot get married, or be recognized as such, with full rights and entitlements thereof. Just because some antiquated books say so. Grrrr.

Get religion out of other people's business! And while you're at it, get your own nose out too. It's simply none of your business. ('You' being plural to anonymous people who voted yes. And especially the stupid couple who came knocking on my door with Yes on prop 8! signs and stuck them in my front yard. Good thing it was trash day. )

It should be separation of church and state ALL THE WAY.

Thank you Garble, for putting into words what I feel.

"... Pirates just kidnapped the bride and everyone is laughing. God I wish I spoke Finnish."

Originally posted by Entropy
But the constitution was not written by Puritans

Funnily enough, it was. Check out the religious affiliations of the authors, with four notable exceptions, they represent various denominations of Christianity and had an agenda to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the government of this new country.

It just so happens that those four voices are exceptionally loud in our history. You can probably name them without consulting Wikipedia. And though those four have some anti-organized religious quotes attributed to them, all of them admit to being tempered to the subject by the experience of working with their fellow authors.

It should be clear that I am not saying we shouldn't have a secular government. I believe that we should. But we should also know our government's history so that we understand why it works the way it does.

LOL That's the one awesome things about debates eh? I always learn stuff from them cause you go and read more stuff to form better discussions or you hear someone else say something that makes you wanna go look it up.

Garble, you hit the nail on the head. I'm a white girl married to an indian guy. That wouldn't have been possible 50 years ago for the same reasons that gay marriage isn't allowed today (well not there. I'm in Canada. We figured that out already). Traditionally men were allowed to beat their wife and kids with a stick. Traditionally women weren't allowed to vote. Traditionally a lot of dang things. Time passes. We chenge with it. And while society isn't perfect, I'd like to think that these measures of change that we're inacting are more kind, fair and don't tear down the rights of the oppressed like we have in the past.

I'm tired of hearing the victim status of people who vote yes. No one's making them do anything. But they are making other people do things. That's the difference. It's the old boys(/girls) club and they wanna keep it that way, plain and simple. Seperate but equal my ass.

I don't agree. Marriage has traditionally been defined by its ideals rather than the exceptions. One unrelated heterosexual, freely and fully consenting couple together for life in a relationship of love, mutual submission, and exclusive fidelity. (Note that membership in the same ethnicity was never a traditional requirement.) That exceptions have historically and currently been allowed does not mean we can just do away with the ideals that define marriage.

I find interesting ancient Hebrew culture's tolerance of polygamy (with extremely strict and numerous limitations), with the understanding that monogamy, not polygamy, was the ideal.

[Edited on 7/11/2008 by Angelique]

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

But who's marriage? Christian marriage? There has been tons of other forms of marriage throughout time, including 'two spirited' marriages among natives here in North America. It's only that it's been oppressed and banned and outlawed. So is 'marriage' only a word that Christians are allowed to use? And then, which branches of Christianity? The concept of marriage (the binding of two people in a complex relationship which honors them, gives them a place in their society and gives them a certain status) has been a long held concept. Christan's may own the word 'marriage' - I don't even know if this is the case - but there certainly have been marriages for a lot longer than Christianity has been around. The problem is that can the government pick favorites and only go with what the Christians view as marriage and only give them the rights and privileges that come with that?

It seems to me that the general popular perception of being a â€˜Christianâ€™ nation may have changed too since the founding fathers. It has been a couple hundred years, after all.

Iâ€™m a secular person, and I believe government should be secular, but that doesnâ€™t mean I wasnâ€™t raised in a â€˜Christianâ€™ home â€“ meaning my family adhered to the general tenants of Judeo-Christianity. That upbringing is always going to at least color my outlooks on life, but it doesnâ€™t define my life or my attitudes. Thereâ€™s a huge difference between that kind of cultural Christianity that a lot of Americans have and this current belief in some sectors that â€˜Christian valuesâ€™ absolutely must permeate every aspect of life, including government. (And letâ€™s not play the semantic game that this is not a â€˜current beliefâ€™ and is a long-standing one, because no one can argue against the fact that the kind of religious fundamentalism Iâ€™m referencing has been acutely on the rise over the last 20 years in America.)

Also, this brings up another point. It has been a couple hundred years since the Constitution was written, so intent is irrelevant. Times change. Perhaps the â€˜separation of church and stateâ€™ concept in the past was to make sure those puritans could practice their â€˜very serious Christianity in peace.â€™ That doesnâ€™t mean that their intent back then should dictate how the phrase is interpreted today, in a world those founding fathers couldnâ€™t even imagine.

Originally posted by Slarti
... their intent back then should dictate how the phrase is interpreted today, in a world those founding fathers couldnâ€™t even imagine.

Agreed.

And for obvious reasons, there is a whole branch of the government dedicated to the interpretation of the constitution as it stands in context of modern society (the courts).

The only reason I bring the point up is that I don't believe that it says "don't talk about religion in schools" or "governments shouldn't enact laws based on religious ideas" in the first amendment. And even though this may be the commonly held popular interpretation, it isn't even how the courts interpret it.

The Bill of Rights:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To me, it says "the government shouldn't force people to believe in one religion or prevent them from believing in another" I think we can all agree that the first amendment is alive and well in this country.

The fact that our country's government can't get its head out of its collective asses enough to extricate itself from the Judeo-Christian beliefs on which it was founded has nothing to do with "separation of church and state" and everything to do with an inability to make necessary and vital ideological changes in its definition of what life, liberty, and happiness*** really means for its citizens.

That's why it drives me so nuts when people invoke "separation of church and state" in these kinds of discussion. The real problem is how it currently defines the first paragraph of the constitution.

-e

***Note added because it's really bugging me. "Life, liberty, and happiness" is not a phrase in the U.S. Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence but I used it because it was more recognizable than the re-phrasing of the statement that opens the Constitution. I claim to like accuracy and here I was deliberately mingling the 2 documents to make a point.

Anyway, the point still stands... I just wanted to own up to the fact that I used the Declaration of Independence to help make it.

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
And for obvious reasons, there is a whole branch of the government dedicated to the interpretation of the constitution as it stands in context of modern society (the courts).

And historically it's been the courts who have brought about civil rights progress in America. In its day Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education wasn't a popular decision either.

This is why I think the argument that the court is opposing the 'will of the people' in same-sex marriage is laughable. If the court's only purpose was to appease the majority, it's possible we would have never seen equal rights for blacks.

Originally posted by Angelique
I don't agree. Marriage has traditionally been defined by its ideals rather than the exceptions. One unrelated heterosexual, freely and fully consenting couple together for life in a relationship of love, mutual submission, and exclusive fidelity. (Note that membership in the same ethnicity was never a traditional requirement.) That exceptions have historically and currently been allowed does not mean we can just do away with the ideals that define marriage
[Edited on 7/11/2008 by Angelique]

Except that those "ideals" are relatively new from a historical perspective.

The men who had multiple child-brides in the bible were not the pagans and heretics, they were the heroes. King David had at least 8 wives (one of which he "stole").

The idea of marriage as one man and one woman is historically recent. And the idea of the woman not being the man's property is newer still.

Originally posted by Angelique
I don't agree. Marriage has traditionally been defined by its ideals rather than the exceptions. One unrelated heterosexual, freely and fully consenting couple together for life in a relationship of love, mutual submission, and exclusive fidelity. (Note that membership in the same ethnicity was never a traditional requirement.) That exceptions have historically and currently been allowed does not mean we can just do away with the ideals that define marriage
[Edited on 7/11/2008 by Angelique]

Except that those "ideals" are relatively new from a historical perspective.

The men who had multiple child-brides in the bible were not the pagans and heretics, they were the heroes. King David had at least 8 wives (one of which he "stole").

The idea of marriage as one man and one woman is historically recent. And the idea of the woman not being the man's property is newer still.

The ideals are not new at all, and what you are pointing out are the exceptions, the compromises, rather than the ideals.

Also, if you really want to bring the Bible into this, none of the practicing polygamists mentioned in the Bible were said to be heroes because they had a gajillion wives or if their status had anything whatsoever to do with the number of wives. In a lot of cases, if they were considered heroes at all, it was in spite of the fact. Then add that the Old Testament also has its share of monogamous heroes, the Talmudic rabbis regarded monogamy as the ideal, and the New Testament specifically discouraged polygamy, and there you have it. Context.

[Edited on 11/11/2008 by Angelique]

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.